Parliament of Great Britain is circumscribed by bounds which, if exceeded, render its acts those of mere power without right, and consequently void." Again, the same memorial repeated-" Acts of Parliament against natural equity are void; Acts against the fundamental principles of the British institutions are void." The Massachusetts Assembly was not slow in responding to these injunctions from the citizens of Boston. A formal letter of instructions was addressed to Jasper Mauduit, their agent in London, setting forth the views which he was to lay before the British Government on behalf of their province. They protested against "the burdensome scheme of obliging the colonists to maintain a standing army," and recounted their past efforts and services in the late war. But they asked, as if incredulous of the news they had heard, "Can it be possible that duties and taxes shall be assessed without the voice or consent of an American Parliament? Ireland was a conquered country; yet no duties have been levied by the British Parliament on Ireland. A people may be A people may be free and tolerably happy, without a particular branch of trade; but without the privilege of assessing their own taxes they can be neither. Prohibitions of trade are neither reasonable nor just; but the power of taxing is the grand barrier of British liberty. If this is once broken down, all is lost; if we are not represented, we are slaves." And they added, "The resolutions for a Stamp Act naturally and directly tend to enervate the goodwill of America towards Great Britain."

At New York, when the arrival of the English packet brought intelligence of what had been done, people of every class were loud in expressions of resentment. Their first notion was to defeat the imposition of the new Customs' duties by refusing to buy or use the imported goods subject to this taxation. They would drink no wine and wear no foreign manufactured stuffs, either those produced in England (such as woollen cloth), or those sent to them by English merchants. They would grow and manufacture their own wool in America; and for this purpose, to permit a more rapid increase of their flocks of sheep, they agreed to eat no lamb. It was a trivial incident of the popular agitation; but it took the fancy, and became a proverbial symbol: "I'll eat no lamb" was thenceforth a watchword of American patriots. But there were some who talked of dressing in sheepskins till they could manufacture cloth; in the meantime, all resolved to dispense with dyed broadcloth, and content themselves with homespun grey or brown fabrics of the country handlooms. This turn of their inclinations was further encouraged by the maxims of homely

frugality which Franklin and others had lately taught in "Poor Richard" and similar publications. Adams even made it a point of heroic virtue, and prayed for his Boston that it might be "a Christian Sparta."

In September and October, when the movement begun in Massachusetts had spread, there were more signal demonstrations of the spirit now aroused in the neighbouring provinces. A treatise written by James Otis, entitled "The Rights of the Colonists," had much circulation amongst them. It was chiefly made up of high-flown declamation, concerning abstract principles of human liberty, and the weakness and wickedness of tyranny, in that style of which Rousseau had set the example in France. But it also contained some pithy sentences in which lay the gist of the argument on the American side. The opinions here stated were more advanced than such as were previously referred to. "A time may come," said Otis, "when Parliament shall declare every American charter void; but the natural, inherent, and inseparable rights of the colonists as men and as citizens will remain. There is no foundation," he proceeded (thus going beyond the views of moderate colonial politicians), "for the distinction between external and internal taxes. If Parliament may tax our trade, they may lay stamps, land-taxes, tithes, and so indefinitely; there are no bounds. But such an imposition of taxes, whether on trade or on land, on houses or ships, on real or personal, fixed or floating property in the colonies, is absolutely irreconcilable with the rights of the colonists, as British subjects and as men. of Parliament," he repeated, in the terms of the Boston resolutions, "when against the fundamental principles of the British Constitution, are void." In conclusion, Otis referred to the possibility of an appeal to force. "Yet the colonists," he said, "well know the blood and treasure that independ ence would cost. They will never think of it, till driven to it as the last fatal resort against Ministerial oppression, which will make the wisest mad, and the weakest strong." This sort of language was not calculated to soothe the roused passions of his countrymen.

Acts

Massachusetts, a committee of correspondence to act jointly with the other provinces. Connecticut addressed to the British Legislature an elaborate disquisition, proving that it had already performed its full share of service to the Imperial Government in the costs of the late war, and that for Parliament to lay on stamp duties, or any other internal taxation, would be a gross infringement of colonial rights. "It was humbly and firmly trusted, and even relied upon, that Parliament, as supreme guardian of the liberties of the subject, would not suffer the same to be done." Pennsylvania, still distracted by its conflict against the proprietary system of government, yet listened to the overtures of Massachusetts and Rhode Island for political joint action. This province alone had spent half a million sterling in the late war, and had sent a thousand volunteers to the more recent Indian expedition of Colonel Bouquet; its taxation now amounted to half-a-crown in the pound of all private incomes.* Its Legislature professed constant readiness to attend to a Royal letter of requisition, for pecuniary aids to be freely voted by the colonists, and levied in such manner as they chose. But this should be their own legislative act, in response to a message from the King by his Secretary of State; they would have nothing to do with a British Chancellor of the Exchequer. Resolutions were accordingly passed by the Pennsylvania Assembly, declining to allow the proposed taxes, but expressing their willingness to grant aids to the Crown, whenever called for in a proper, constitutional manner. They now appointed Franklin, who had come home in 1762, to return to England as the agent for the province, with new instructions which he was to show to the Ministry. The remaining provinces were not indifferent to the political emergency.

The Assembly of Virginia addressed the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, with a protest against the taxation of America by the British Parliament. This was declared to be "subversive of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and of dangerous example." But the people of Virginia, if permitted to enjoy "their undoubted rights," would still cherish their connection with "Britain, the seat of liberty," as their greatest happiness. In North Carolina, likewise, an address was voted by the Assembly, claiming the exclusive right of imposing taxes; and a committee was appointed to act with the Massachusetts committee.

The New York Assembly met in September, and

• Franklin's evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons.

33

An

immediately took measures to secure for its constituents "that great badge of English liberty, the being taxed only with their own consent." address to the King was agreed to, in which this "exclusive right" was claimed as one already recognised by his Majesty, and the loss of which would reduce them to "the basest vassalage." They complained also of the laws restricting trade, of those interfering with the exercise of the financial credit of their province, and of the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts without trial by jury. Separate and distinct addresses to the House of Lords and to the House of Commons were adopted at New York. These addresses disclaimed, "with the utmost abhorrence," any thought of independence for that colony, with regard to the supreme power of the Empire. They acknowledged, "in the most extensive and positive terms," the lawful authority of the British Parliament "to model the trade of the whole Empire," so as to subserve the interest of the trade of Great Britain; "but the freedom to drive all sorts of traffic," they added, "in subordination to and not inconsistent with the British trade, with an exemption from all duties in such a course of commerce, is humbly claimed by the colonists, as the most essential of all the rights to which they are entitled as colonists, and as connected in the bond of liberty with the free sons of Great Britain." It was not only the threatened Stamp Act, but the new customs' tariff, to which they objected. "For since all impositions, whether they be internal taxes or duties paid for what we consume, equally diminish the estates upon which they are charged, what avails it to any people by which of them they are impoverished?" In conclusion, the New York Assembly demanded for the people of that colony "an exemption from the burthen of ungranted and involuntary taxes; as without this security there could be no idea of property or liberty, no happiness, and "life itself would be intolerable." It could never be, they said, that the Constitution of Great Britain allowed one part of the community for ever to tax and legislate for the other part. If it did so, it would be the most unequal Constitution that ever existed; "and no human foresight or contrivance," it was finally observed, "can prevent its resulting in the most intolerable oppression."

These demonstrations of the Provincial Legislatures, in the summer and autumn of 1764, were the reply made by the English people of America. to Grenville's challenge from the Treasury Bench of the House of Commons. He had so little of the wisdom of a statesman that he never took the principle of their refusal into serious considera

tion. Yet he received timely warning from an official quarter hitherto most favourable to the prerogatives of the Crown. Hutchinson, the ChiefJustice and Deputy-Governor of Massachusetts, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Exchequer, earnestly remonstrating against the Parliamentary

imposition of taxes.

His arguments, both of equity and of expediency, were clearly and forcibly stated; but he was a time-serving man, anxious to be in favour with the winning side. Persons well acquainted with America thought the Ministry were acting too rashly.

AT the opening of Parliament in January, 1765, the question of further taxing America was referred to in the King's Speech, as one of "obedience to the laws, and respect for the legislative authority of the kingdom." This suggestion was answered by the two Houses in their Address, with the assurance of such "temper and firmness as would best conciliate due submission and reverence." Here was an evident consciousness of the approaching political struggle. It was next alluded to in the discussion of the Army Estimates, when Charles Townshend, as Paymaster-General, insisted upon establishing a large military force in America; "for the colonies," he said, "are not to be emancipated." The writings of Otis, and other declarations of the rights claimed in Boston and New York for those communities of English freemen, were now read by persons in London connected with the Government. A reply was drawn up and published by Soame Jenyns, one of the Board of Trade; while the Attorney-General, Charles Yorke, and the eminent Lord Mansfield, Lord Chief-Justice, studied their precedents and arguments of law, with a similar intent to uphold the Royal prerogative. Grenville, in the meantime, had to meet the deputations of London merchants, and the agents for several American provinces, who remonstrated in vain against the policy he had taken up. They asked him, instead of levying a tax, to make a requisition, through the Secretary of State, for the supplies needed on behalf of the military service.

Franklin, who had now arrived in England as agent for Pennsylvania, offered a formal pledge that its Legislature would comply with such a requisition. Jackson, who represented Connecticut, dwelt upon the gravest political objection to Great Britain taxing the colonies; that if the Crown had a Civil List and standing army there, independent of their own Legislature, their civil liberties would be endangered. This was denied by Grenville; but the remark soon met with a practical commentary in a new order from the War Office, that the military commanders all over America should act without reference to the civil Governors.

This was indeed the purport, though not the express text, of the official determination arising from a dispute in Florida, which had no particular connection with the controversy we have followed. It was natural enough that the alarmed colonists should look upon all such measures and proposals as forming one system of policy adverse to their freedom. The chief promoter of this despotic system in America was Francis Bernard, the Governor of Massachusetts, who had just communicated to the Ministry his scheme of a thorough change in all the provincial Governments. He recommended a civil list, beyond the control of local Legislative Assemblies; an order of colonial nobility, with life-peerages; the abolition of existing charters; and either the administration of the whole by one Government, or the formation of three large provinces, suppressing Connecticut and Rhode

Island. At the same time, Colden, the LieutenantGovernor of New York, was contending for the subjection of all judicial proceedings in the colonies, even trials by jury at common law, without any writ of error from superior courts, to a decision by the King in Council.

Another measure was in hand, which just then attracted but little notice, yet was destined to have momentous consequences in a short time. The extension of the Mutiny and Billeting Act to the army in America was managed by Mr. Welbore Ellis, Secretary at War, according to the recommendations of General Gage. It included provisions for billeting troops in the barracks of the provincial militia, in public-houses, inns and taverns, barns and empty houses; but the colonial Governments were required to furnish them with fuel for firing, candles, cooking utensils, bedding, beer or cider, rum, salt, and vinegar, at the cost of the colonial tax-payers. It was a small matter, apparently, in amount and in principle; but it was calculated to serve for the occasion of an irritating dispute between the Imperial and Provincial legislative powers.

The Stamp Act, however, which Grenville had frankly announced in the year before, was to become the more immediate subject of contention. It was on the 6th of February, 1765, that he proposed to the House in Committee fifty-five resolutions of minute detail, for an Act imposing a variety of stamp duties in America, and establishing the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts in all cases under this Act, as well as under the Customs' Acts. The Minister spoke at considerable length, and stated that it was found necessary to maintain an army of ten thousand men in America, which would cost £300,000 a year; that the duties and taxes already enacted would yield but £100,000; and that America could and should pay for the establishment of that military force employed for its protection. He compared the public debt of England with that of the colonies; the increase of taxation, and the cost of the public services, in the mother country, and in those distant provinces, respectively. He declared that Parliament, as the common council of the whole Empire, was fully capable of imposing internal taxes in the colonies, as well as taxes on their trade and navigation; and that all their charters were subject to the supreme legislative authority of Great Britain.

The resolutions were passed with few dissentients in Committee, though Alderman Beckford and Mr. Richard Jackson spoke against them, as both unjust and imprudent. The Stamp Act was then brought

35

giving rise to more than one lively debate. Among the speakers, one who most distinguished himselfTM was Colonel Isaac Barré, an eloquent Irishman who had served with General Wolfe at Quebec, and had contracted personal friendships in America. He reproached the Ministry and the House for not knowing, feeling, or caring for the interests of the American people. Hereupon Charles Townshend, who also piqued himself upon his acquaintance with America, replied with a vehement asseveration of the great advantages that the colonies had gained from the last war at the cost of Britain. "And now," said he, "will these American offspring, planted by our care, nourished by our indulgence, protected by our arms, till they are grown to a good degree of strength and opulence, will they grudge to contribute their mite, to relieve us from the heavy burthen of national expense we lie under?” This was an inconsiderate way of putting the case, inasmuch as it betrayed either ignorance or forgetfulness of the earlier periods of colonial history. It laid the Ministerial advocate fairly open to a powerful retort from that impassioned rhetorician, Colonel Barré, who was keenly sensible of every point in favour of his American clients. "They planted by your care!" he exclaimed. "No, it was your oppression that planted them in America; they fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated, inhospitable country, where they exposed themselves, for the principles of true English liberty, to every hardship, and to the cruelties of a savage foe. They nourished up by your indulgence! They grew by your neglect of them; and as soon as you began to care about them, it was to send persons, in one department and another, to spy out their liberties, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon them; men whose behaviour has caused the blood of these sons of liberty to boil within them. They protected by your arms! They have nobly taken up arms in your defence, and exerted their valour on the frontiers, amidst their constant laborious industry in the interior of their country, which yielded all its little savings to your service. And believe me -remember I this day told you so the same spirit of freedom will actuate that people still. Prudence forbids me to explain myself farther ; yet I claim to know more of America than most of Its people are as truly loyal as any subjects the King has, but a people jealous of their liberties, and who will vindicate them, if ever they should be violated. But the subject is too delicate; I will say no more."

you.